Archive for the ‘Charles Darwin’ Category

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races

November 24, 2009

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

Charles Darwin, Descent of Man

Mr Darwin believed human ‘races’ had an evolutionary pecking order with the negros and aboriginals (the ‘savage races’) currently (i.e. in his day) at the bottom. Don’t worry, Darwin was wrong. By the way, I lost count of the number of times (scores) Darwin referred to the ‘savage’ or ‘civilised’ human races in Origin of Species.

An article in Wikipedia, attempts to save Darwin by pointing out, correctly, that Darwin does not express a desire that the ‘savage races’ disappear. The passage is descriptive of what might happen rather than prescriptive of what should happen. But the article neatly sidefoots my point here that he assumed a hierarchy of races. It does indeed require a malicious character such as a Hitler to take that hierarchical description and ‘clean’ the genetic stock. But the theory lends credence to evil men such as Hitler even though the conscience of many men protests as such barbarity.

Advertisements

Evolution – evidence still lacking

August 17, 2009

Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed.

Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters.

Nothing has changed since he wrote that, despite desperate attempts to find transitional forms.

Darwin also wrote:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei [“the voice of the people = the voice of God “], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

(from the chapter, Difficulties, in Origin of Species)

There are many ‘ifs’ in Darwin’s claim that the problem of the eye could be explained. His book is unconvincing (except to those who want to believe it of course) in provding the explanation. Note how each gradation must be ‘shown’ to be useful to the possessor. What modern-day evolutionists tend to do is hypothesize how such and such a development in the eye might have been useful. They fail to meet Darwin’s much more reasonable (scientific) criteria.

Is Evolution self-refuting?

August 7, 2009

With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy.

[Darwin C.R, letter to W. Graham, July 3rd, 1881, in
Darwin F., ed., “The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin,” [1898],
Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. I., 1959, reprint, p.285]

Can the mind of man, descended, as I believe, from the lowest animal be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?

Darwin

It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-
product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true.They may be sound chemically,
but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.

Neo-Darwinist, Haldane J.B.S., “When I Am
Dead,” in “Possible Worlds: And Other Essays,” [1927], Chatto
and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209)

The contradiction between materialism and reality arises
frequently in biology, but it is most inescapable when we consider the human mind. Are our thoughts “nothing but” the products of chemical reactions in the brain, and did our thinking abilities originate for no reason other than their utility in allowing our DNA to reproduce itself? Even scientific materialists have a hard time believing that. For one thing, materialism applied to the mind undermines the validity of all reasoning, including one’s own. If our theories are the products of chemical reactions, how can we know whether our theories are true? Perhaps Richard Dawkins believes in Darwinism only because he has a certain chemical in his brain, and his belief could be changed by somehow inserting a different chemical.

Johnson P.E., “Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds,” InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1997, pp.81-82

The conclusions of the mind depend ultimately on their survival value and not on their truth.

David Lack

Naturalism’s Unintended Consequences

March 18, 2009

“With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has always been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? — Charles Darwin